There is a difference in my disputing the fear mongers and those who plan to leave me alone. Again, let it change. This has happened over and over. It will make me pleased to have more days of warmth.
But you have consistently refused to state WHY it is changing Climate will not change without a reason and it does not change without a cause
No matter what the reason(s) are very complicated and will not be defined in talking points. However when we consider that evidence indicates our planet should be cooling because of orbital dynamics, axial tilt and various other astronomical observations but is instead heating up dramatically during the timeframe of industrial greenhouse gas creation it seems clear human activities play into this. When solar output, natural variation and many other possibilities are eliminated as a cause of heating our atmosphere and oceans, especially at the rate it is occurring the artificial input must be considered. All observations and reading from space as well as terrestrial sources have shown our influence is not only real but increasing.
This gives us a hint of Curry's thinking. ← The debate Fundamental disagreement about climate change Posted on May 30, 2018 by curryja | 179 Comments by Judith Curry How can the fundamental disagreement about the causes of climate change be most effectively communicated? I have made numerous posts related to this topic, see especially The heart of the climate dynamics debate My specific motivation for this post is to encapsulate this disagreement in a single .ppt slide. My first crack at this is provided below: I am soliciting your input on how to convey this to the public on a single slide. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments.
Robert I. Ellison | May 31, 2018 at 1:08 pm | Reply “Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.”http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751 Something to think about .........
I am tired of the guilt trips. Let's return to science, shall we? Check this out. Dr. Strangelove | May 31, 2018 at 8:28 am | Reply Climate chaos comes from fluid dynamics. You can turn chaos into order if you have exact analytical solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. This mathematical problem remains unsolved for almost 200 years. Clay Mathematics Institute offers a million-dollar prize to anyone who can solve it. Here’s a description of the problem. http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/navierstokes.pdf Show it to anyone who claims they can predict long-term future climate states. Tell them to submit their solutions to Clay Mathematics Institute. Or else it’s fake physics
Finally a hypothesis! Badly stated but at least we have one Trouble is it is posited more like a strawman argument than a working hypothesis and I do note any lack of scientific support for her stance Admittedly this is only a PowerPoint but where is her evidence?? This and the post below are what I like to call "toothpaste ad science" Because they include poorly understood concepts that sound impressive but mean nothing. "Contains Dihydrogen Monoxide" In this case there is a lot of flag waving about chaos theory Bottom line - where is the experimental evidence??
The guilty tend to feel that way. As others have pointed out, Curry tends to let cranks babble in her comments. You're quoting the cranks. The blog poster points out how some Navier-Stokes equations don't have an exact analytical solution. Lots of differential-type equations fall into such a category category. You can't get the input equation to spit out an exact output equation. And it doesn't matter, as climate models use discrete approximations. There's no need for an exact analytical equation. According to that poster, wind tunnel models can't work either, as they do the same thing. Yet those models do work. All kinds of fluid flow models use the N-S equations. They work. Same with climate models.
Sure, the draconian regulations that would be imposed on them as a consequence of this hoax are nothing to sneeze at. No, which is why I don't want farmers burdened with regulations that serve no better purpose than to empower bureaucrats and throttle Big Ag's competition. Most of this is irrelevant, of course; but more to the point, if the local weather guy, fresh out of college, got the local temps right within ±3° in his first month on the job, you'd be a damn fool to bet serious money he'd get it right on any particular day thereafter - but he'd still have more of a track record than any climatologist alive, by at least an order of magnitude. You guys haven't got a clue about that. All you have is clownish amazement that, having looked where nobody ever looked before, you see what nobody ever saw before.
Specifics please And remember when we talk climate change it is a global problem do your answers better show how this is happening to farmers worldwide
There is no "climate game". Gore's personal lifestyle does nothing to impugn his message; attacking him is misdirection and makes you appear desperate.
I am so desperate that the day I drove home to a hotter climate by 10 degrees than at my office, I noticed no damage at all. Why do you fear warmer days when it's proven not to hurt us?
I recall the home i owned in Pleasanton, CA and realizing on the first hot day that the climate there was different than here in Fremont, CA. Factually the SF Bay area is judged by climate experts to have around 9 climates. Well, I got home to the children swimming in the pool and being astonished they were still alive given the hotter climate in Pleasanton. How can this be given the fear mongering going on by the alarmist committees? I am still amazed that the city of Pleasanton still draws so many new people given the alarmists have us trying to believe a couple of degrees will ruin it for all of us and still i see no damage to Pleasanton.
How many times must I post that local is not the same as global? You are constructing strawmen because you cannot refute the science you are making up rubbush about people being "scared" about dying from the heat Mind you after our summer of rolling heat waves.........
As if you have to be my authority. I explained the problem. Warmer climate. And we were not dying off. So stop worrying so much. You claimed, I believe at any rate, you are not living in utter fear. i am not either. I posted science on this forum. <Mod Edit>
The science is neat and useful, but at this point observation seems more pertinent and all observations point in a single direction. No one (maybe a few) is dying yet but it seems a matter of time before it begins and there is no way to stop it once it does. It does not really even matter who believes what at this point because we all get to deal with the reality one way or another. Honestly I just don't much care anymore because I'll be dead whatever happens and my kids are resilient. Everyone else ....you are on your own so...Good Luck.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/05/top-15-climate-scientists-consensus-and-skeptics/#comments We have a list of top climate scientists who are pro AGW vs the list of them that are Skeptics. Top 15 climate scientists: consensus and skeptics Posted on June 5, 2018 by curryja | 6 Comments by Judith Curry This is rather astonishing, kudos to Best Schools for putting this together. Best Schools has put together another very interesting list: Top 15 Climate Change Scientists – Consensus and Skeptics. Recall their previous list that included the top 50 women in STEM Here is the rationale for what they have done: We are well aware that those who support the mainstream position that anthropogenic climate change represents a grave threat to the future of humanity will deplore our decision to represent both side of the debate (or even to characterize the ongoing discussion as a “debate” at all). They have convinced themselves that only cranks and paid stooges could possibly disagree with them. We see things differently. Simply stated, we maintain that appeals to authority and scurrilous ad hominem attacks are no substitute for rational argument. We also hold that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This means, among other things, that mainstream climate scientists who roundly condemn climate skeptics for seeking support from private industry ought to be a bit more circumspect, seeing that they themselves receive millions in financial backing from government agencies. The tacit assumption behind their indignation — that only private actors have material interests, while public actors are by definition impartial seekers after truth — simply won’t wash. We strongly suspect that in, say, 100 years’ time, when (we hope!) scholars will be in a position to investigate this whole disgraceful episode in the history of science more objectively, they will find plenty of blame to go around. Our position is simple. It is the classical liberal one. Drumroll. Cue the shade of Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why should I defend someone else’s freedom to say what I myself believe to be wrong? Because the truth is one thing, my knowledge of it is something else. And because this means that the essence of rational inquiry is intellectual humility. And also because the slow and painful advance towards truth is best served by the open and honest airing of disagreement. For all of these reasons, we deplore all attempts to use political muscle to shut down academic debate. Perhaps our liberal take on the ethics of inquiry has become unfashionable in this postmodern age. To which we respond: So much the worse for intellectual fashion. That said, we do not feel under any obligation to give “equal time” to both sides. In the end, we came up with the following formula: the mainstream position will be represented by 10 scientists; the skeptical position by five. !!! Here is the list: 10 Consensus scientists (NOT alphabetical): Wallace Broecker James Hansen Phil Jones Syukuro Manabe Michael Mann John Mitchell V. Ramanathan William Ruddiman Susan Solomon Tom Wigley 5 skeptical scientists: Lennaert Bengtsson John Christy Judith Curry Richard Lindzen Nir Shaviv I am very impressed by this article, and very thoughtful biosketches for each are included. Your thoughts on the list?
More on the 97 percent. Link supplied in post 222 so you can check into this more. The 97% ‘consensus’ Posted on July 26, 2013 by curryja | 349 Comments by Judith Curry Isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am. – Andrew Montford I’m sure most of you have encountered the recent paper by Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which includes John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience fame. And the many critiques of this study that have appeared at WUWT, Blackboard, etc. IMO, the main point of all this is that he concept of a ‘consensus’ surrounding climate change is becoming increasingly meaningless. Ben Pile’s recent post What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? has certainly stirred the pot. Some excerpts from Pile’s post: On the pages of the Guardian’s environment blog, Dana Nuccitelli (who is not a climate scientist) compiled a list of what he thought were Neil’s mistakes. ‘These are your climate errors on BBC Sunday Politics‘, he proclaimed. But half of Nuccitelli’s rebuttals related to Neil’s treatment of the study into the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change, co-authored by Nuccitelli, which represents (according to the study) the views of 97% of scientists. Davey had cited the study during the interview, but Neil had said that it had been largely discredited. (M)any sceptics have pointed out that the 97% figure encompasses the arguments of most climate sceptics. In evidence to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee last week, Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who is routinely vilified for his apparent climate scepticism, claimed that his arguments fell within the 97% definition. Here in the UK, climate sceptic blogger and author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, Andrew Montford tweeted in the wake of the survey, ‘isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am’. This prompted Met Office climate scientist, Richard Betts to poll the readers of the Bishop Hill blog, ‘Do you all consider yourselves in the 97%?’. It seems that almost all do. Just as Donald and Painter’s evidence to the STC reflected either naivety or a strategy, Nuccitelli’s survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends. The survey manifestly fails to capture arguments in the climate debate sufficient to define a consensus, much less to make a distinction between arguments within and without the consensus position. Nuccitelli’s survey seems to canvas scientific opinion, but it begins from entirely subjective categories: a cartoonish polarisation of positions within the climate debate. Yet the survey was cited by Davey himself in defence of the government’s climate policies in the face of changing science. Whatever the scientific consensus is, the fact that this consensus can be wielded in arguments about policywithout regard for the substance of the consensus creates a huge problem. The consensus referred to by Davey and Nuccitelli, then, is what I call a consensus without an object: the consensus can mean whatever the likes of Davey and Nuccitelli want it to mean. Davey can wave away any criticism of government’s policy simply by invoking the magical proportion, 97%, even though those critics’ arguments would be included in that number. Consensus is invoked in the debate at the expense of nuance. A polarised debate suits political ends, not ‘evidence-based policy’. But what a broader view of these debates reveal is a more troubling phenomenon of an uncritical reproduction of orthodox thinking on climate science by putative experts in science and public policy, across Twitter, the blogosphere, print media, the academy and political institutions. Physicians, heal thyselves! The consequence of excluding non-expert opinion (other than expert opinion’s cheerleaders) from the climate debate is, paradoxically, the undermining of the value of expertise. Rather than engagements on matters of substance, a hollow debate emerges about whose evidence weighs the most, whose arguments are supported by the most experts, and which experts are the most qualified. The question ‘who should be allowed to speak’ dominates the discussion at the expense of hearing what they actually have to say. Accordingly, rather than being a dispassionate study into scientific opinion, the 97% survey was a superficially academic exercise, intended to obfuscate the substance of the climate debate. Those who fell for it forget that its authors, aside from having their own — shock horror! — agendas, have no expertise in climate science, much less any interest in taking the sceptics’ arguments on. But what the squabble over the Sunday Politics interview reveals is that political debates descend to science; they are often not improved by science and evidence as much as they degraded by undue expectations of them. Being an advocate of science seems to mean nothing more than shouting as loudly as possible ‘what science says…’, second hand. And those who shout most loudly about science turn out to be advancing an idea of science which, rather than emphasising the scientific method, puts much more store — let’s call it ‘faith’ — in scientific institutions. Hence, the emphasis on the weight, number and height of scientific evidence articles, and expertise, rather than on the process of testing competing theories. The comments on the thread are very interesting, with this comment by Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia making quite a splash in the climate blogosphere: Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on? There is very interesting discussion on the thread, including comments by Dana Nuccitelli and further points from Ben Pile. JC comments: In case you missed it the first time, check out my recent publication No consensus on consensus. So, what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%. IPCC and other leading climate scientists can’t agree on the cause of the lack of surface temperature increase for the past 15+ years (i.e. see the recent article in the New Republic).
Sir Issac Newton, Charles Darwin and Galileo never would have had a chance with the alarmists. Einstein would be roundly booed by them. How dare he challenge Newton?
I have resorted to telling them all "I do not care." They want to live the fearful life and I prefer to look all around me and answer this vital question. Temperatures do impact on climate. But do they harm humans? What has man invented in the way of climate? Did we invent hurricanes or tornado or a climate where the ice persists? Can humans take a grip on climate and actually control climate? I do not believe this is possible. We can't control world hunger so how can we control climate. Bugging me over climate wastes a lot of time. We get treated as if we did it to climate. I resent the smear to be blunt here.
